View Single Post
Old 11-03-2010, 02:03 PM   #19 (permalink)
ShadeTreeMech
Basjoos Wannabe
 
ShadeTreeMech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 870

The Van - '97 Mercury Villager gs
90 day: 19.8 mpg (US)

Lyle the Kindly Viking - '99 Volvo V70
90 day: 25.82 mpg (US)
Thanks: 174
Thanked 49 Times in 32 Posts
For giggle, I pulled up some info on a VW diesel with exactly 1/2 the displacement.

Quote:
From Wikipedia
2.0 R4 16v TDI CR

132 kilowatts (179 PS; 177 bhp) @ 4,000 rpm; 400 newton metres (295 ft·lbf) @ 1,500-2,000 rpm — Volkswagen Transporter (T5) GP biturbo
The engine in my Explorer is a 4.0L V6 with 155 hp and 220 lb/ft torque.

So I would halve the engine displacement, add 22 hp and 75 ft/lb torque, plus increased fuel economy. And if I kept the transmission stock, it wouldn't be an issue, as I rarely revved to 4000 rpm with the gasser, and it redlined at 5500 rpm anyways.

I'd likely never find the money to do this ideal setup, but it illustrates how different a low tech gasser is compared to a modern turbo charged diesel.

And FYI while I may call the 4.0L low tech, it had direct ignition (instead of a distributor) and multiport fuel injection in a day when the distributor and throttle body injection were still in common usage.
__________________
RIP Maxima 1997-2012


Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf View Post
I think you missed the point I was trying to make, which is that it's not rational to do either speed or fuel economy mods for economic reasons. You do it as a form of recreation, for the fun and for the challenge.
  Reply With Quote